Gothamist: Seattle's Public Toilets' Crappy Ending

NannyState

Fri, 18 Jul 2008 03:09:21 -0500

This stuff will never work in America. Starbucks will just have to keep ordering gloves and spray bottles.

Nick S

Thu, 17 Jul 2008 18:05:04 -0500

I third the "i-take-rogue-dumps-in-starbucks" comments.

edEx

Thu, 17 Jul 2008 17:37:12 -0500

STARBUCKS is my street toilet.

Kojak

Thu, 17 Jul 2008 15:58:03 -0500

Why would I want to spend $89,000 to buy something druggies used hide out in to shoot up, hookers used to turn tricks, a thousands of random strangers used to piss & shit in? Besides, it wouldn't fit in my living room.

Savage

Thu, 17 Jul 2008 15:13:45 -0500

NYC already has a ton of public restrooms. We just call them Starbucks.

Think twice

Thu, 17 Jul 2008 15:13:33 -0500

Have Charmin, Lysol, or Kohler run all the public and semi-public restrooms and let them do all the product placement they'd like. Like what Charmin did at Times Square: http://gothamist.com/2006/11/20/charmins_times.php Ya can't trust government to keep it spic and span, only a private firm who's reputation is at stake.

gossipgirl

Thu, 17 Jul 2008 15:01:59 -0500

I used one of our self-cleaning public toilets this past weekend while waiting for my burger at Shake Shack. It was gross. Becuase the bathroom cleans itself after each use, the toilet is completely wet when you use it (as is the floor of the bathroom, like wading throuhg a puddle). If you put the protective liner down, it just sticks to the toilet.

drewo

Thu, 17 Jul 2008 15:00:33 -0500

Don't hold your urine waiting for NYC to install public toilets. That seems to be a project beyond the Big Crapper's capabilities.

smokedgouda

Thu, 17 Jul 2008 14:56:28 -0500

Seattle has an out-of-control homeless problem. The moderate climate and permissive atmosphere there make it a haven for people with serious problems who never move on. On top of that they have to eat all the costs because of a anti-advertising revenue mindset there. That doesn't make sense at all.